Srinagar: An employee cannot be denied salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ for any act or omission on the part of the employer, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh ruled on Friday.
The court while dismissing an appeal filed by J&K Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation (HPMC), underlined that the principle of “no work no pay” can be put into operation when the employee remains out of service because of his own act, omission or fault.
It cannot be so when an employee is kept away from the work by any act or omission on the part of the employer, a division bench comprising a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani said.
The Corporation had challenged a single bench verdict of the J&K High Court on the sole ground that as the employees in question have not worked for the period for which they have claimed salary, therefore, the Corporation cannot be directed to pay the same to them.
The bench did say that it was settled law that no one can claim wages for the period, for which he/she remained absent without leave or justification.
The case pertained to employees who had initially opted for voluntary retirement but resumed service after they were “not paid benefits” under the VRS scheme.
On the other hand, counsel representing the employees argued that the HPMC was under an obligation to pay voluntary retirement benefits to the employees within 60 days and when the same were not paid, the employees preferred a petition before the court.
With the intervention of the court, he said that the employees were allowed to resume their duties, which they did and thereafter they sought release of their salary for the intervening period in their favour along with interest.
The counsel further argued that it was only because of the corporation’s false promise that the employees accepted the voluntary retirement offer. The counsel further contended that the employees remained out of service only because of the corporation, as such, the corporation cannot claim that the employees did not perform any work.
The judges examined the judgment passed by the Writ Court and held that it has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were kept away from work by the authorities after accepting their offer of voluntary retirement and, as such, they are entitled to salary for the intervening period.
“There is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned writ court,” recorded the division bench and said that they did not find any ground to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. “The same is well-reasoned and lucid and deserves to be upheld. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed,” they said.
